BA has already explained he cant do that.

its not £275 its £235, but as you didn't get the notice of enforcement either he cant charge that £75 either.

pers i'd be complaining to the council at all the lies you are being told regarding these fees as they ARE responsible for the actions of the bailiffs they employ to do their dirty work.

so as no bailiff enforcement is currently 'in force' as none of the fees can yet be charged...why not see if they'll let you set up an arrangement wit them directly?

might also be worthy to RING your local councillor tomorrow and make a pest of yourself too!!

search for posts by london1971 he has the info in his posts

if you cant find it i'll do it later.

Yup,

Find your local Councillor contact details on the web. Email them and

Just explain everything, as you have here, and ask for the Bailiffs to be called off, and all fees cancelled because you never received a Notice Of Assignment. However make sure you say that you are willing to pay any outstanding Council Tax direct to the council.

Do this, and there is a 90% chance of this being solved in the next 24 hours.

sorry for the delay in replying had no internet, thanks for that info , we moved 180 mile away so probably being thick but do i find my councellor where i live now or the one for back up where the address was previously to contact?

old council

BA has already explained he cant do that.

 

I am afraid this seems to be incorrect DX

 

pers i'd be complaining to the council at all the lies you are being told regarding these fees as they ARE responsible for the actions of the bailiffs they employ to do their dirty work.

 

so as no bailiff enforcement is currently 'in force' as none of the fees can yet be charged...why not see if they'll let you set up an arrangement wit them directly?

might also be worthy to RING your local councillor tomorrow and make a pest of yourself too!!

 

search for posts by london1971 he has the info in his posts

if you cant find it i'll do it later.

As far as I can see this is incorrect, as the first(compliance) fee £75 is due on receipt by the bailiff of the order.

Stages of enforcement for which fees may be recovered – enforcement other than under High Court writs

5.—(1) The relevant stages of enforcement under an enforcement power which is not conferred by a High Court writ are as follows—

(a)

the compliance stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the receipt by the enforcement agent of instructions to use that procedure in relation to a sum to be recovered up to but not including the commencement of the enforcement stage;

Hi all , not sure if anyone can help..

.. still got this ongoing issue.

.. I have emailed the councillors for the area (as theres 3) a few times

one email I got a reply saying they had passed info over to relevant department!  

I’ve not heard anything back 

chased it again today, but not holding my breath.

 I’ve just received a phone call from the enforcement team saying they were at my door for removal of goods (I’m at work so good luck with that one)  

is my next step citizens advice ?

Or are they a waste of time

Bristol & Suitor are still saying “they can’t remove those charges”  as per my previous posts ..

even though I’ve still not received any letters apart from the one I had off them after my last phone call but that had all the charges on not just the £75..

I don’t know what else to do & it’s starting to get to me that I can’t just sort it out with these idiots.. any help appreciated 

Paying the council in an attempt to avoid fees, will of course not work, never has.

They will just send it on to the bailiff.

Your two choices are to suit it out until the EA sends the account back to the authority.(nulla bona) .At which point the fees will drop off, and you will be left with the original debt.  Conversely you could come to an arrangement with the bailiff to pay him by instalment. If you do this he may want to take control of your goods under a controlled goods agreement. Upto you.

On 18/01/2019 at 15:56, ericsbrother said:

you need to know when it went to court to give the council the liability order.

 

being at an old address they probably did this but that also means they may still be chasing the debt at the old address rather than asking the court to change the paperwork.

 

This menas that you are likely to get a set aside if you apply for one and then you can pay what you owe rather than the fees as well.

 

Also a poke in the eye for the councl if they knew they were chasing you at the wrong address

You cannot set aside a liability order, it is made at a Magistrates court.

2 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

You cannot set aside a liability order, it is made at a Magistrates court.

Of course you can, otherwise LOs mistakenly imposed could be enforced.

I think the term set a side is misleading ..its regarded as a complaint .

https://www.33bedfordrow.co.uk/insights/bulletins/application-to-set-aside-liability-order-is-a-complaint

http://www.greenhalghkerr.com/articles/qa-setting-aside-liability-orders/

On 27/03/2019 at 12:43, md13 said:

Hi all , not sure if anyone can help..

 

 

Bristol & Suitor are still saying “they can’t remove those charges”  

I don’t know what else to do & it’s starting to get to me that I can’t just sort it out with these idiots.. any help appreciated 

When a new address is located, an enforcement company must abide by Regulation 8 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement as outlined in my previous post (number 18).  You mention that Bristow & Sutor are continuing to disagree. Do you  have this in writing?

For the avoidance of doubt, in order to legally 'take control of goods' or to charge fees, an enforcement agent must issue a Notice of Enforcement and this MUST comply with Regulation 8 which states that the notice will not be considered as being legally served unless it is sent to the debtor:

'At the place, or one of the places, where the debtor USUALLY lives or carries on a trade or business'. 

In your particular case, B&S have undertaken checks and have established that you have moved. In this respect, they should have issued a fresh Notice of Enforcement to the address where you USUALLY live (which is number 6A).  Unless they are willing to do so, the position is very clear. They can neither take control of goods...or charge fees. To do so, would be unlawful.

You may wish to remind the company that unless they are wiling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement to your USUAL address (number 6a), that you will be looking to pay the ARREARS direct to the council. 

8 hours ago, Andyorch said:

I think the term set a side is misleading ..its regarded as a complaint .

 

https://www.33bedfordrow.co.uk/insights/bulletins/application-to-set-aside-liability-order-is-a-complaint

 

http://www.greenhalghkerr.com/articles/qa-setting-aside-liability-orders/

Indeed, but really no more than a potayto potahto situation.

7 hours ago, Bailiff Advice said:

You may wish to remind the company that unless they are wiling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement to your USUAL address (number 6a), that you will be looking to pay the ARREARS direct to the council. 

Why give them the heads up? If you're advocating just paying direct then surely the OP should just do that rather than give the EA opportunity to add fees.

20 hours ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Of course you can, otherwise LOs mistakenly imposed could be enforced.

Nope 

One of the reasons liability orders are issued through the magistrates court is that none of the civil CPR apply.

You cannot set aside any magistrates court action. Can you imagine the chaos. if liability orders could be challenged in this way.

1 hour ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Why give them the heads up? If you're advocating just paying direct then surely the OP should just do that rather than give the EA opportunity to add fees.

Well no. I think when you say set aside most think of the civil precure, this is not the case here, as said CPR does not apply. From the link

Q&A: Setting Aside Liability Orders

Q.       The council is planning to enforce a liability order, but the debtor is seeking to set it aside on the basis that the debt is disputed.  How should we deal with this?

A.      Whilst the magistrates’ court does have the power to re-open criminal cases, there is no corresponding power in respect of non-payment of council tax or business rates, which is a civil matter.  Equally, there are provisions within the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside court orders in the county court and high court, but the CPR do not apply to magistrates’ court proceedings. 

Which I think is what I said.

1 hour ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Why give them the heads up? If you're advocating just paying direct then surely the OP should just do that rather than give the EA opportunity to add fees.

World of difference between what BA is saying and what you are suggesting. This is not about avoiding fees, its about showing the EA the possible consequence of his actions.

13 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

Well no. I think when you say set aside most think of the civil precure, this is not the case here, as said CPR does not apply. From the link

Q&A: Setting Aside Liability Orders

Q.       The council is planning to enforce a liability order, but the debtor is seeking to set it aside on the basis that the debt is disputed.  How should we deal with this?

 

A.      Whilst the magistrates’ court does have the power to re-open criminal cases, there is no corresponding power in respect of non-payment of council tax or business rates, which is a civil matter.  Equally, there are provisions within the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside court orders in the county court and high court, but the CPR do not apply to magistrates’ court proceedings. 

 

Which I think is what I said.

Not sure why you stopped there - being a little selective aren't we? The rest of that section says:

Common law route

However, the authority to set aside liability orders has now been established as a common law principle following a series of three cases beginning in 2002.

Etc, etc.

11 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

World of difference between what BA is saying and what you are suggesting. This is not about avoiding fees, its about showing the EA the possible consequence of his actions.

BA advised the OP to inform the bailiff that if they don't send a new NOE he will pay the arrears direct to the council. This surely means that although the account is with the EA, paying the arrears direct to the council is a valid option, otherwise why even advise it?

17 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Not sure why you stopped there - being a little selective aren't we? The rest of that section says:

 

Common law route

However, the authority to set aside liability orders has now been established as a common law principle following a series of three cases beginning in 2002.

 

Etc, etc.

Not reallyzsure why you stopped there.

The debtor has no entitlement to do so simply because the liability order is disputed.  In the recent case of Dias v London Borough of Havering [2011] EWHC 172 the court held that even though the majority of liability order proceedings may be viewed as a “rubberstamping” exercise without the protection of a full judicial process and with limited rights of appeal, a bankruptcy court cannot look behind the liability order unless the debtor or interested party is able to demonstrate that it was obtained by fraud, collusion or a miscarriage of justice.

I think you are confusing common law and civil law. Again setting a principle and being able to actually make the complaint are miles apart, if you did read the whole case, it is about a completely different scenari to a member of the public just challenging his bill. You were thinking of making a claim, to the civil court etc. now you seek to enlong you mistake into other teriories wont work this time.

Enough nonesense now.

Just now, Dodgeball said:

Not reallyzsure why you stopped there.

The debtor has no entitlement to do so simply because the liability order is disputed.  In the recent case of Dias v London Borough of Havering [2011] EWHC 172 the court held that even though the majority of liability order proceedings may be viewed as a “rubberstamping” exercise without the protection of a full judicial process and with limited rights of appeal, a bankruptcy court cannot look behind the liability order unless the debtor or interested party is able to demonstrate that it was obtained by fraud, collusion or a miscarriage of justice.

I think you are confusing common law and civil law. Again setting a principle and belong able to actually do are miles apart, if you did read the whole case, it is about a completely different scenari0o to a member of the public just challenging his bill. You were thinking of making a claim, to the civil court etc. now you seek to enlong you mistake into other teriories wont work this time.

 

Enough nonesense now.

Oh for heaven's sake, you've quoted from the section about bankruptcy.

The fact remains that a liability order absolutely can be set aside. Not by the CivPR obviously but by other means, ie LGA 2003 s82. Another part of the page says:

3.             The application to the justices for the order to be set aside must be made promptly after a defendant learns that it has been made or has notice that any order may have been made. Prompt action means a matter of days or at most a very few weeks, not months and certainly not as much as year.

Your earlier advice simply implies that there is no means of removing a LO once in place, even if it's made erroneously.

Quote

You were thinking of making a claim, to the civil court etc. now you seek to enlong you mistake into other teriories wont work this time.

Don't recall where I said anything about making a claim. Just merely stating that a LO can be set aside.

Can't decipher the rest of that sentence I'm afraid.

16 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

BA advised the OP to inform the bailiff that if they don't send a new NOE he will pay the arrears direct to the council. This surely means that although the account is with the EA, paying the arrears direct to the council is a valid option, otherwise why even advise it?

3 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Oh for heaven's sake, you've quoted from the section about bankruptcy.

 

The fact remains that a liability order absolutely can be set aside. Not by the CivPR obviously but by other means, ie LGA 2003 s82. Another part of the page says:

 

3.             The application to the justices for the order to be set aside must be made promptly after a defendant learns that it has been made or has notice that any order may have been made. Prompt action means a matter of days or at most a very few weeks, not months and certainly not as much as year.

 

Your earlier advice simply implies that there is no means of removing a LO once in place, even if it's made erroneously. 

What are you talking about the words liability order are mentioned in the quote? That complaint has to be made via the authority, I think you will find and the criteria above still apply. IE not for just saying the bill is wrong, the authority has to agree and send the complaint. Wandering about again, typical.

As for the other silly remark, again BA is talking about continuing the enforcement you are talking about fee avoidance?